protocols

[Sound Machine Inc]

This is primarily for Bob, but is there any chance of SAC or SAW having Eucon Control? would be a lot more in depth than the midi stuff, and could map some controllers for eq / gate comp / other things..

[Bob L]

Not sure if there are licensing fees to be able to use that protocol... if so... that is a major consideration.

Otherwise... if I can have one to work with for a while... there could be a possibility.

Bob L

[Sound Machine Inc]

Not sure if there are licensing fees to be able to use that protocol... if so... that is a major consideration.

Otherwise... if I can have one to work with for a while... there could be a possibility.

Bob L
I'll see if I can dig anything up on licensing fees.. if low or non-existant I'll probably be buying one soon for my Cubase system (Sorry but had to use it for my analog console's automation) and would ship it to you and let you use it for a month if that would help

[soundchicken]

I really doubt that avid is going to want Bob in on this, at least not cheaply.

I did find this (ftp://quarante.dynalias.com/E/Euphonix/Softs/Artist%20series/EuConDocumentation/GettingStartedWithEuCon.pdf).

or apply here (http://www.avid.com/us/partners/developer-program/audioPlugin) for access to the SDK

[Sound Machine Inc]

I really doubt that avid is going to want Bob in on this, at least not cheaply.

Not sure why you would assume that considering the LONG list of others like Cubase, Nuendo, Digital Performer, Audition, Sequoia, and Pyramix that support it.

[PhaseShifter]

It would probably be more beneficial for SAW (and SAC too) to support this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control

[jcgriggs]

It would probably be more beneficial for SAW (and SAC too) to support this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Sound_Control

Beneficial based on what criteria? The implementation section does not list a lot of hardware that implements this (and a lot of what is there appear to be lighting controllers)

It's nice to be open, but if it doesn't bring more hardware to the table, it hardly seems worth the effort...

My $0.02 (Canadian Tire),
John

[PhaseShifter]

Beneficial based on what criteria? The implementation section does not list a lot of hardware that implements this (and a lot of what is there appear to be lighting controllers)

It's nice to be open, but if it doesn't bring more hardware to the table, it hardly seems worth the effort...

My $0.02 (Canadian Tire),
John

One of the problems with SAW/SAC is that the software dictates the MIDI hardware controller you can use and it seems that this is result of some of the limitations in the MIDI protocol.

If the MIDI limitations were removed in SAW/SAC, you could easily use a MIDI/OSC translator, removing the MIDI heavy lifting from SAW/SAC while at the same time allowing any MIDI or OSC controller ( physical or virtual ) to be used.

From what I've read, it looks like it takes a great deal of effort to come up with a MIDI template for a controller to be used in SAW/SAC. Using protocol like OSC would/should allow the user community to create and share templates for controllers with great ease.

I've seen some of the OSC apps available for smart phones and tablets, and this would allow SAW/SAC to easily branch out to that huge market.

[jcgriggs]

If there are OSC/MIDI translators, why can't they be used with the existing MIDI controller protocol support?

The list of existing hardware with OSC support is short and apparently dominated by lighting controllers and I don't see how a smart phone app that uses MIDI would be any harder to write than an OSC app.

Given that OSC support for SAW would have to be written from the ground up, I still don't see the cost/benefit equation being that great.

But that is definitely just my opinion.

Regards,
John

[cgrafx]

If there are OSC/MIDI translators, why can't they be used with the existing MIDI controller protocol support?

The list of existing hardware with OSC support is short and apparently dominated by lighting controllers and I don't see how a smart phone app that uses MIDI would be any harder to write than an OSC app.

Given that OSC support for SAW would have to be written from the ground up, I still don't see the cost/benefit equation being that great.

But that is definitely just my opinion.

Regards,
John

The primary reason has to do with performance. MIDI is too slow to handle the amount of data that needs to be moved for a large control surface implementation. OSC is a faster protocol. On the other hand, the fastest interface would be direct API calls that could then be mapped to any alternate control protocol (MIDI, OSC, Eucon, etc).

[RBIngraham]

And seeing as nothing has been done in regards to advance control surface support in SAC or SAW for years now.... this entire thread is basically moot anyway. So it's basically pointless to debate whether MIDI or OSC or something else might be the best way forward.

[PhaseShifter]

And seeing as nothing has been done in regards to advance control surface support in SAC or SAW for years now.... this entire thread is basically moot anyway. So it's basically pointless to debate whether MIDI or OSC or something else might be the best way forward.

It never hurts to dream, though sometimes the landing is rough when you wake up!